Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

A tale of two phrases…

By

 You all need to get on board and stop the sniping. If you think it’s bullshit, call bullshit. Obama don’t need to do it. YOU need to do it. If you got James Carvilles number CALL HIM and tell him he’s a turncoat serpenthead dumbfuck moron. If McCain is driving the debate, it’s the media that needs a good bitching and maybe a bitch slap. THAT’s YOUR JOB.

Obama, he’s doing a good job. Ain’t nothing else he can do to get out the message. YOU NEED TO REPEAT THE MESSAGE. OFTEN AND LOUDLY. It’s just that simple.

Palin says ‘boo’ and next day every Republican everywhere is saying ‘boo’.

Obama says ‘boo’ and next day every Democrat everywhere says “no, not boo… maybe foo… or maybe goo…. or hooo… but definately not boo.”

SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH SECOND GUESSING AND JUST REPEAT OBAMA’S MESSAGE.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Found this yesterday on the web (h/t Alterman)

    <

    p>

    This research led me to two conclusions. First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare. In fact, many people struggled to fabricate harmful consequences that could justify their gut-based condemnation. … This is the first rule of moral psychology: feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete. If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion.

    <

    p>

    … Drawing on Shweder’s ideas, I would say that the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.

    When Republicans say that Democrats “just don’t get it,” this is the “it” to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label “elitist.” But how can Democrats learn to see-let alone respect-a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?

    … They want more prayer and spanking in schools, and less sex education and access to abortion? I didn’t think those steps would reduce AIDS and teen pregnancy, but I could see why the religious right wanted to “thicken up” the moral climate of schools and discourage the view that children should be as free as possible to act on their desires. Conservatives think that welfare programs and feminism increase rates of single motherhood and weaken the traditional social structures that compel men to support their own children? Hmm, that may be true, even if there are also many good effects of liberating women from dependence on men. I had escaped from my prior partisan mindset (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later), and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society.

    In The Political Brain, Drew Westen points out that the Republicans have become the party of the sacred, appropriating not just the issues of God, faith, and religion, but also the sacred symbols of the nation such as the Flag and the military. The Democrats, in the process, have become the party of the profane-of secular life and material interests. Democrats often seem to think of voters as consumers; they rely on polls to choose a set of policy positions that will convince 51% of the electorate to buy. Most Democrats don’t understand that politics is more like religion than it is like shopping.

    The Democrats must find a way to close the sacredness gap that goes beyond occasional and strategic uses of the words “God” and “faith.” But if Durkheim is right, then sacredness is really about society and its collective concerns. God is useful but not necessary. The Democrats could close much of the gap if they simply learned to see society not just as a collection of individuals-each with a panoply of rights–but as an entity in itself, an entity that needs some tending and caring. Our national motto is e pluribus unum (“from many, one”). Whenever Democrats support policies that weaken the integrity and identity of the collective (such as multiculturalism, bilingualism, and immigration), they show that they care more about pluribus than unum. They widen the sacredness gap.

    <

    p>Personally, I can see where he is coming from, but I do deplore that intellectual playing field appears to be rigged for th the triumph of tribalism over reason.

    • … I saw that yesterday as well. Read the whole thing and found it quite an adequate treatment of why someone might vote for Republicans ONCE.  It does not, in fact, address why Republicans REPEATEDLY vote for people who in fact REPEATEDLY betray those core ideals of which Haidt writes.  

      • … fidelity toward ideals.  It just betrays that finding identity with the ‘in group’ isn’t based on their ideals (or track record for that matter.

Archives